Why Female Selection is a HUGE Deal - Prof. Jordan Peterson
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 кві 2018
- Psychology professor Jordan B. Peterson argues that the evolutionary process for humans is anything but random. In consequence of female sexual selection.
This clip is only an excerpt of his lecture “2017 Personality 08: Carl Jung and the Lion King (Part 2)” held at the University of Toronto. You can watch the entire lecture here: • 2017 Personality 08: C...
You may also be interested to know that Dr. Peterson's book “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos” is finally available. You can find it here:
amzn.to/2ipaBnQ (US)
amzn.to/2kpdXv9 (UK)
amzn.to/2jTRq67 (CA)
Don't miss out on his best selling first book “Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief” which much of his lecture material is based on:
amzn.to/2rhChiA (US)
amzn.to/2riBZYR (UK)
amzn.to/2HRMyZI (CA)
The above are Amazon affiliate links.
Please visit www.psyche-matters.net for categorized clips and more Jordan B. Peterson related content!
Instructions unclear : Cleaned my room.
Why the hell is there world of warcraft character creation screen in the thumbnail :D
I think it's a play on the wording "female selection". Also clickbait for all of us who think female orcs are sexy
Yeah, that was misleading
plus Peterson said smth about world of w. in the past
I loved it...
Women want Orc men with high levels.
Came for the WoW screenshot, stayed for the Canadian Conqueror
Alcohol adds some random variables...
King-comment right there
69 likes
Nice.
Alcohol is the randomness that those scientists were talking about.
@@theulmitter5725
Not so random... it is a certain TYPE of woman that goes to bars and drink too much, that distorts the selection process, not so natural after alcohol; and they also come from families or situations that have that extra cash to do so. Specially in college campuses.
GGR TheMostGodless r/woooosh I guess
Its sunday and I am drinking and there ain't nobody here to stop me :P
clicked because wow and jordan peterson
lmao.. same
i have a guild i was pleased that you can put a lobster on a tabard
same.
Well thats pretty much everything in thumbnail
What's this?
I thought this would explain the mentality of picking female characters in videogames
Now we need one of the mentality of blatant clickbait
me too lol
Yeah I was fully expecting to get called out here. Lol
yes, i wanted to know this so much, what a clickbait.
Glad I saw this. Saved myself 5 minutes.
I can listen to Jordan all day, everyday. Amazing, thank you
OKAY WHO PUT WORLD OF WARCRAFT IN THE THUMBNAIL???!!!
I thought this video was going to be about men who choose to play as women in video games :/
We have men playing at being women in RL too...what about them?
Yes clickbait
as a guy who plays a female character there are three reasons I chose female for the majority of my games:
1. I look at a male in the mirror everyday. a break from reality is nice.
2. female characters mostly look cute making long amounts of time spent in game more tolerable.
3. it's good for multiplayer (PvP) situations where the opponent thinks they're better because they're fighting against a girl that likely doesn't know what they're doing or isn't very good in general.
third reason isn't a very common one but it still counts. I like to use all my cards to get any sort of advantage lol
Same
@@lieshtmeiser5542 THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM
I am reading '' The Mating Mind'' by Geoffrey Miller. He explains how sexual selection is also random at first. Here is how it works: a female happens to prefer a certain male mutation and if reproduction and survival occur, the trait goes on in other generations. The trait will thus become a sexual ornament. The female never ''consciously'' know that mating with a male with a particular mutation will lead to offspring. But if it happens, then the preference for the trait and the trait itself will go on in other generations. It is only after the fact and because it is successful that we can assume that it was ''conscious'' and not random. Anyway, nobody knows what ''conscious'' means. My current understanding is that it means nothing. We could remove the word from our language and nothing would happen.
So he's suggesting that if every time a female selected a guy it led to offspring, her "choices" would look a whole hell of a lot like sheer randomity instead of intentional selection? Lol that's really interesting I've never heard that theory, but it makes sense to me. If a million women selected men with brown eyes equally as often as ones with blue, yet only got pregnant with the kids of brown-eyed dudes, you're right, we'd all consider brown eyed dudes both desired by females, and *desirable* BECAUSE they're desired by females. Very clever, cheers!
You should research genetic algorithms for machine learning on computers, because because I believe it's a good analogy for this. Basically, you need both random and non-random. The random mutations are important for solving abstract problems/inefficiencies, but if we have too much random then the new solution with usually be less accurate that the previous. Non-random solutions (ex. clone/copy of the previous generation) are better for when you already have mutations that cannot be improved, but if something changes in the environment those old mutations because useless and so we need new mutants to adapt. So it's a balancing act between random and non-random.
In other words you can get layed if you're good looking or competent in your field, but anything less and you're screwed.
Money can also help^^. Or rape works, but it's unethical.
Dat thumbnail though so on point wp :D
I am crestfallen J Petes is not using Orcish dominance dynamics in his synthesis of human gender roles and relationships.
And this is why I practice stoicism and self-discipline and a self-sufficient lifestyle
I can't speak for the original poster but for me it isn't stoicism because it's not a pain, in fact it's the opposite. I see pursuing women/maintaining their favor as a pain in the butt and not really worth the amount of attention that it requires. For me, it's just a logical choice to not pursue things if they aren't worth the upkeep/cost. I've even had several decent women try to pick me up but I still prefer my freedom over whatever they can provide. Everyone is different though, I wouldn't expect other people to understand how much I appreciate being able to do whatever the fuck I want, when I want. Any form of relationship just seems like a restriction on my freedom that I'm not willing to part with.
Bryan M absolutely agree, it sounds weird when I hear someone who makes so much effort to find and sustain relationships, just for what, it just makes life even more complicated, it interferes with your freedom, and also, it's kinda hard to choose an ideal woman, and why should you choose somebody, who isn't ideal, unless you follow anything what resembles a female. Any relationships must be ideal or must not exist, and your own freedom must be always on the first place, because we live our lives, we live them just once, and it's too short to put someone other than yourself on the first place, maybe it sounds a little bit too much like egoism, but in the end, everyone understands, that it's true
What I was trying to get at is that by making myself happy I also become attractive to women, because they notice I have my shit together. They test you to see if you can handle yourself, if you are willing to bear your burden so to speak.
Based Guitarist very blackpilled
@@BasedGuitarist07 someone that works hard on their confidence and physique can’t become an alpha? I don’t buy that...
Wait so if you have a bunch of lobsters scrambling around in a pot on the stove, which one gets the most serotonin?
Peterson is being dominant by talking loudly into a mic and waving his hands around
Lmao
lol
I tend to pick random nerds❤
Does he make videos on the genetic dominance hierarchy? Which genes are most superior?
But if the male dominance hierarchy is the most successful and 'best' one. How come species families like arachnids, mantisis exist (basically a much larger female eats the successful male). There is also the examples of hyenas, lemurs and bonobo's with mammals that don't necessarily conform to such hierarchy (fun fact:female hyeans even have 'fake' testicles due to hormones). If the male hierachy was the most successful then none of these stated examples should exist, since natural selection would have seen them disappear.
man ur thumbnails are great but LOL that vanilla wow character screen
OSoC Patrol vanilla-mists. Not just vanilla :p
If men at the top of the dominance hierarchy are more likely to have offspring than men at the bottom, that means with each generation, more children are born into the top than the bottom of the hierarchy. But as long as the hierarchy itself remains a constant, that means that birth will, with each passing generation, have less to do with success in within said hierarchy.
Edward Morris hierarchy scales
The fallacy you're making is assuming that being born at the top of the dominance hierarchy places you at the top of the dominance hierarchy. Each individual is still evaluated individually by the hierarchy. But because offspring born at the top are more likely to have "dominant" characteristics (traits that put you at the top of the hierarchy) it is still beneficial (from the femail point of view in sexual selection) to choose from the top.
Billy Bob Money isn't the only way to measure dominance. For example, women (if I remember correctly) are more attracted to men that touch other men more. As strange as this may seem, touching other men (not in a sexual way) shows willingness to invade personal space of the othet male.
Edward Morris
What's deemed as valuable may become more stringent (and also change to some extent).
The fallacy you're making is assuming I'm making the fallacy you assume I'm making. I'm merely drawing Peterson's claim to its logical conclusion, or at least towards it. If it's true that offspring born at the top are more likely to have dominant traits (why would that be?), and it's also true that there are more offspring born to those at the top, then it necessarily follows that, over time and without some other limiting factor, the "dominant" would become a majority, and would have to compete for dominance - in other words, some traits would be more "dominant" than others. I don't think this is an unreasonable theory, inasmuch as it is consistent with the idea of evolution. However, I don't really buy any of it. People who end up on top of dominance hierarchies are often mentally lazy or get to the top by chicanery. I would guess that the last US four presidents have had IQs hovering around 100 or less, NOT that I think IQ is everything. But it's not nothing. Let's put it this way: can you imagine yourself having a coffee with any one of those dreary nobodies and finding out that they know ANYTHING at all? I suppose the next conclusion would have to be that intelligence is not a dominant trait. I guess I'd buy that.
So hierarchies have NOT changed over time, over millions of years, they haven't changed what it takes to climb them??
I imagine that now, because of the many different aspects of society and so also many different hierarchies, men who in the past couldn't or were unable to climb the few hierarchies in existence, they can now be the king of the small castle (hierarchy) if they are motivated; you see "men" at the top that wouldn't be anybody in those ancient hierarchies..... so is pussy acquisition the only reason to climb?? Seems to me more like a by-product. You climb while competing with other men for position of dominance or capability, and women look for those guys, I have never said Oh I will climb that particular challenge to get women, it is more like I climb (win) and I find lots of women wanting me THEN. But I know it would be a huge mistake to think those women would have wanted me if I hadn't climbed or if I weren't at the top of that particular competition; so I don't take my eyes off the real thing, as female choice can move if you RADICALLY lose that position.
It is a great truism to remember: that wherever you go women are already there, so don't take rocks to the hill, or a sandwich to a restaurant.
First off, people that climb dont do it for as shallow reasons as "have as much sex as possible", that would be a childish mentality. By reductionist logic were all made of something which was once fecal matter, so why bother to rise above that. Its a crappy mentality thats propagated.
Second, men in older times actually had scricter lineages and religions which dictates their marriage, basically, it didn't matter if you were top dog, your family would have arranged for two people of similar age to marry as soon as the girl is given permission from the father. Similar, in arabic countries, the females would have guardians (the girl's father, grandfather, uncle, brother etc) which would entrust the girl to a suitor given that the suitor promises riches for the girl's family, plus taking care of her, becoming her guardian, in absense of family guardians. (basically be a good husband, protector and provide for the girl who is entrusted to you as wife to be)
Khajiit Hadwares hard to take care of your wife if you don’t have alot of money
@@fredriklembke23
"hard to take care of your wife if you don’t have alot of money"
3:42 Evolutionary scientists have long been well aware that evolution is far from random. Has JBP read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins? Much of his lecture content on evolutionary psychology would imply he has...
Secondly, mutation of individuals being the dominating factor in evolution is a common misconception. Genetic variation due to recombination between gametes is what causes most of the genetic change throughout populations, and it happens much more gradually.
You're sort of talking about two different things. Recombination describes how you get new combinations of genes. In order to get new genes to begin with, you need mutations. They go hand in hand as opposed to one doing more work than the other.
You're totally correct. What you're saying actually supplements my point. Mutation does have a distinct influence upon evolution, which happens to be at its highest proportion when involved in shorter genomes and is absolutely decisive in asexual reproduction. However, in multicellular organisms with up to billions of genome base pairs and large populations, mutation's influence is dwarfed by variation.
What about the gene pool? Ie forget individual choices (for a minute), and focus on a) the existence of diversity of genes and b) the relative levels of particular genes increasing or decreasing as the environment, culture, population, etc., as all the thousands or millions and now billions of “selections” are made in a ... now changing environment, culture, technology, etc?
Then, ask yourself if and what kinds of “selection” sub-pools various people find themselves amongst in order to choose?
-National
-city/regional
-socio-economic
-college vs non-college
-isolated/don’t-leave-home vs can & do venture to other towns/cities/regions/countries
...
?
I’m thinking of some of the implied repercussions of Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 by Charles A. Murray. (Forget the “white” part of
it for a minute-he only did that as a simplification of a academic.)(It’s really a book about how the prep testing, increase in colleges, and college selection process-along with a ever-separating society-are feeding each other to separate the top 10% vs the bottom 10% so that we’re separating ourselves culturally, physically, mentally, educationally, genetically, etc.) (Gives me the shivers: reminds me of the 2002 movie The Time Machine. The human race separated into different species....🥺)
but what determines the selection criteria?
Logic, reason and patterns. Selection is natural process which follows a logical process, whereby the best suited to survuve, is most likely to survive.
Alternate title: Jordan Peterson explains why we like harem animes
Everyone puts value on different things
Yeah but what puts the value on value?
So would it be correct so say that women chose which people will exist and men decide which of those are on top of the hierachy?
Yes
Finally no fucking piano background music. Thank you for the upload!
why is the thumbnail world of warcraft hahahaha
2020 and here I am still getting catfished by thumbnails smh..
If u add up all the triangles he drew in the air u could probably recreate the graphics in the thumbnail....also confused by the content and title lmao
Is he locked on a specific person the whole time?
Hahaha
I have watched a lot of his stuff. I believe he is answering a question that one of the students asked.
the thumbnail has no relation to this instance of meaning of the word "selection".
Further reading: Thomas Nagel, "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False."
Damn, was hoping to be able to link this to a friend who only plays female characters....
The only exception to the hero in a movie thing is The Phantom of the Opera
The definition of evolution by natural selection is the non-random selection of randomly acquired mutations (or more often the deselection of randomly acquired detrimental attributes) and the future selection of beneficial combinations of attributes. Selection is not random, controlling of course for chance survival/death.
TEFKAS on a large enough time and sample size scale that could account for every single gene and corresponding epigene, i have a feeling we will not see randomness for natural selection.
Intricate and immeasurably complex, but not truly random. Though you could easily argue that by this point it is essentially random once any part of evolution is unaccounted for.
I got the "randomness is not real" meme from Firas Zahabi in his interview in some Brit's car
I was a bad boy but very protective and ambitious. A woman fell obsesses over me. I thinknits her trauma from previous abuse .
Who in modern biology is downplaying sexual selection? If you think that's the case, it may be that you don't understand that sexual selection isn't in opposition to natural selection, it's a form of it. It's like memes. Attraction to any kind of body form or behavior is possible. The sexual selections that become common are, in the long term, the ones that accurately assess fitness.
Female Orc is my favorite race for Wow regular or Mag'har I wish my body looked like a Female Orc. I should do that and body build and show up at a convention one day.
Given that you used clickbait (remember what Dr. Peterson says about lying) to draw viewers, what are you going to do for all of us who still want an answer for the question you pretended was going to be addressed?
Why do so many men pick female video game avatars?
sexual selection is not random as long as ther is all women choosing a few man, but social structured monogamy makes it random, though beauty tend to rise in the hierarchy and inteligence tend to be submited
you see what hes doing here right? its quite ingenius because his point is proving that WE DO have a choice in who we are sexually attracted to, you are making a CONCIOUS DECISION when you choose to sleep or fall inlove with someone or something because your mind fabricates a fantacy that maybe you had been exposed to that created that innate feeling might be dilusional about saying is your baser instinctual and natural selection choice (gender), by people saying that they dont have a choice and theyre just following their instincts they are probulay unware of the fact their exposure to something created that feeling and seem to have this impression that there is something wrong with them mentally when there is not... its just a selfish decision to rush into their instinctual feeling to chase something that has subliminaly been inplanted there, this is exactly why you have to monitor what your kids see and hear because that shit will mess up their minds thinking they are broken when its just other people making selfish decision hiding behind pride saying its okay to show everyone its okay to be this way... its not... very much not...
True
There isn't a single aspects of manhood who isn't a direct or indirect product of sexual selection by woman. The other way also exist to some extent.. in the realm of sexual reproduction we evolve to meet each other needs . We are all eachother consequences..
I would think that if men have been selected by females for higher quality traits, the average state of the average human would be higher. There are still so many flawed people around. I would have thought it would be bred out after all this time.
Hmmm...after weighing the words of Jordan Peterson with what I've read in the story of Adam and Eve and then looking at the selection process of women through history I found that few women choose men based on their godly virtue, and many women instead choose men based on the values Eve was attracted to when deceived by the serpent to eat the forbidden fruit:
1) Pleasure
2) Power
3) Riches
Now I say this because Eve's proximity to the forbidden fruit implied her strong desire to attain what was in it. So while Eve accepted Adam because he was a godly man in the beginning she was more desirous of what she couldn't have. When we look at the Abraham and Sarah we see that she remained loyal to Abraham who was a simple nomad at this point and could have enjoyed the bounties of royalty. Later on in the story of Joseph we see the wife of Potiphar falls madly in love with Joseph, not because his status or wealth as he was a house slave, because of his good looks and beautiful body. In a similar case Delilah marries Samson because of his great bodily strength yet, once his strength leaves him and he is no longer useful in her eyes she betrays her husband for silver coins. And in the case of Batsheba she had sex with David because he was the king and therefore had no fear of death for the matter of adultery. Then there are women like Cleopatra who married for the sake of convenient political advantage with the added benefit of deriving pleasure from her encounters with Juilus Caesar and Mark Antony. And for more of the common women many simply chose men who they believe can provide help and sustenance. The baser women either out of opportunity or desperation will sell their bodies for bread and coin...and some like the wife of Napoleon Bonaparte will simply sleep with a man for the sake of pleasure...
In all cases history has shown that many women who give into their fallen nature choose men based on one of the three perceived benefits they believe they will derive because they on an unconscious level recognize those traits as belonging to a real man. This in fact is not the case as the real man is one who is able to resist eating the forbidden fruit though the Woman he loves or is attracted to has partakes of it. And it is this man that women truly look for.
If this were not so then we should expect that women choose men based either on power, strength, or riches. But, the examples I have cited above show that is not the case at all.
Fallen nature? Eve was deceived by the Devil while Adam simply took an apple and bit it.
@@CC-xn5xi And? We learn from Adam that men fall when they love women more than the Truth and righteousness.
As for the fallen nature it's clear it's been in all men and women since the fall of Adam and Eve. It's that fallen nature we all fight against when we seek to live uprightly.
There is nothing random about natural selection lol. Mutations are random. Sexual selection is not random either. Just as natural selection chooses the most viable, offspring, mates choose the best partner they can get. The criteria by which they choose their mate is largely rational and logical though this isn't gauranteed in all cases. Women choose stronger, smarter, more dillegent and agreeable men, on the most part. Evolution is not random
Thats a clever clickbait
I played male human in classic, tbc and wotlk but since the rework of animations, moving etc. i changed to female because they don't look like shit. It's only about style nothing else...
So why if the hierarchy's desirable qualities are well defined and understood are women notoriously bad at choosing partners, I mean, at least half of marriages end in divorce... could it be that marriage itself is the unnatural thing??!! Could it be also that bad selection is the result of artificial support for bad women's choices in mate selection?? So how natural is natural selection in modern day society's?? The hierarchies are all screwed up!! Or are they, Peterson himself went against some of the things he thinks are bad for society, and that is only ONE mayor thing screwing with the selection process, and that thing fucks up the selection because women at some point choose those weak fuckers; if they didn't, they would disappear in a few generations??
It seems also clear that women not always select the men at the top of a hierarchy... the answer to why that is the case is manyfold, and ONE reason is the same as why MOST men don't go for the women at the top, they don't think they can keep up or think they are not good enough for some reasonS.
Judging by the thumbnail one would think he's gonna criticize the video game industry. Yeah right...
So other males hate me cause I’m good looking women give me a lot of attention an the sad part is I have Aspergers an it really hard for me to have relationship
And I thought this would be about WoW… My selection was blood elf female for years, when I simply got bored by blood elf male (his voice and running animation sucks).
Why blood elf? Because Warcraft 2 and 3. And high elf. Basically - Fuck horde, fuck alliance, for Quel'Thalas!
Brains-Wash Matters
How can he be a Christian and believe in evolution? Or did he adapt his relgion?
He accepts natural science, but thinks we have to follow a Judeo-Christian basis of moral values. Honestly I wouldn't call him Christian. He seems to have a very figurative interpretation of scripture. Probably cherry picks a lot too.
The pope believes in evolution
Roman Catholic Church is open to idea of evolution. God could have evolved species.
Darwinism isnt exactly in the healthiest condition anyway these days. Despite being popularly accepted by the general population, the field is referred to as neo-darwinism now, not darwinism.
Yeah dna might be a little complex for our current model of evolution
@@alpacamaster5992 the pop culture concept of it also completely sidesteps that darwinism is so hit and miss. The pop culture reference only works for anyone that is selected against BEFORE they reproduce and pass on their genes. Any stupid thing that people do AFTER theyve completed all their reproduction is outside natural selection.
@@lieshtmeiser5542 I mean darwinism is the origin of species not the origin of life
@@alpacamaster5992 theres so much that isnt known about how species evolve, its just taken as a given that somewhere along the line it occurred.
And then yes, why did cyanobacteria suddenly appear? Why did the big bang occur, was there a parent universe?
Beware the rabbit hole.
@@lieshtmeiser5542 yeah when you go outside of time itself don't expect to understand much of anything
I’m such an idiot.. all I can think of is how many triangles did he draw in the air..
If look at the selection is in the US you have to reinvent the LOVe of physics
Bit of click bait there
2:02, 2:33, 2:42, 2:47
Somewhat confusing the statement of JP - he says the top male in hierarchy is very likely to leave offspring. Then HE is chosen by females (assuming many females) as their mating partner. So he says women choose. I think both sides choose. The top male can pick only the females who HE likes so in that sense it is HE that chooses, not the females.
I guess at some point you would reach a turning point. At first female do the chosing but once you are a certain hight up the pyramid you have several woman choosing the same guy which results in the male being able to take his pick.
I kept repeating 1st second of the film for a long time. I'm writing this before watching video and I'm willing to do this again after i type it
Jordan Cookerson
clicked this cause wow thumbnail left knowing that its not my fault im single lol
Shit...he aint been around poor folk...they make babies holding hands. meanwhile my more successful friends cant make a future tax slave for fuckall.
What if the woman's mate is chosen for her; didn't that often happen, and it happens now. In those cases, the female isn't choosing at all.
How often do women choose the wrong mate though? Weak males can find a young foolish female and lie to her and manipulate her into thinking he is a good choice. But once he is in it is too late cuz bam she is pregnant and he runs off because he isn't actually fit to be a man and a father and she is stuck being pregant with and raising his kid. So parents will chose a mate for her so that the prospect has to impress the much wiser parents, instead of the young fool, who is too easy to impress.
It's not like the mothers aren't influential as fuck in choosing mates....
That is irrelevant. Peterson uses 'world mind' for a good reason, as it encompasses both personal, interpersonal and environmental selection.
To give a crude example, it encompasses predators choosing which prey to eat because it doesn't look poisonous or able to fight back.
Parents choosing a mate for their daughter would have them obeying the same rules as that daughter would (were she mature enough). They'd choose a mate as capable as possible as befitting of their daughters hereditary standing (familial value) and personal value (how pretty/domicile she is). Parents in those times would loathe having a headstrong articulate daughter because they'd know that would give them troubles in selecting the best male for her as that wasn't what males (or parents of said males) would want for in a spouse (for their son).
Any anecdotal evidence to the contrary is rubbish. Women have selected men for ages and they've selected men capable of providing for them (the women and their offspring) and protecting them (their willingness to place the lives of women&children above their own in EVERY SINGLE SITUATION EVER).
Why do you think Titanic was such a fucking enormous hit? Because Jack died at the end.. for Rose.
Think about that. The ultimate epitome of romance for a woman is a man GIVING UP HIS LIFE for her. Nothing as absurd as equality or something like that. No. DYING FOR HER is what women expect of men and feel entitled to.
If you're interested in learning more watch these videos as a quick crash-course introduction to MGTOW/Red Pill:
ua-cam.com/video/vp8tToFv-bA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/KBgcjtE0xrE/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/C46rSIfTum4/v-deo.html
And don't forget rape. In ancient times it was probably a lot more common than today
Yet from the moment any form of society started forming it would have been considered immoral. It is without a doubt that 'rape' as a form of selection and reproduction would have held little sway in the shaping of societal conduct or as a cursor for natural selection from the moment we started having morals and ethics. Neoteny would have ensured that other men witnessing the rape or knowing of it would not stand for it.
That thumbnail
two things: conscious contribution to our own evolution should be obvious.. but hierarchy in the way exemplified here is risky in my opinion. i think the idea that every human has the same idea of what qualities we are looking for in our mates is absolutely absurd. there might be a shared concept you can get a grasp on when you are close to the pulse of a major metropolis, but i'd like to believe that we are too individual for all of us to fall for said concept. then again its a common cliche that women tend to fall for men who are not good for them.. xD
You said ..."Conscious contribution to our own Evolution should be obvious". Can you briefly explain exactly what you mean?
@@LeeLee-kk1qu since we (usually) are able to choose whom we mate with. Or weither or not to reproduce at all. We are by and large conciously "directing" our own evolution.
If I were a woman, I'd be a fool to mate with any male that wasn't handsome and successful. To actually offer my body to a beta male? Yuck!
Tbh it's actually foolish to give your body to the alpha. It's usually betas taking care of alphas kids when the alpha leaves the woman lol.
mmmmm--- what of the anti-hero hero in movies?? The sacrificial lamb you'd say?? Are movies with music, sound effects and editing fucking up the concept of a hero, are they skewing things in such a way that women see those weak fuckers as desirable partners; the guys that are able to cry with them for the most insignificant shit?? The ones that actually cater to them for what they think will make them happy, sacrificing and neglecting what they should be focusing on for the LONG-term success??
A professional athlete is selected MAINLY because of what he is (same with all other selection, a doctor is selected on a few main things also, making money always among the few qualities women find attractive? No-- more like "desirable"!!), then women demand his time and resources, so he neglects his professional things which made him attractive to women in the first place, then he fails or is demoted professionally and women reject him ignoring the fact he neglected his career because she demanded MORE of his time, to lease her!! You have a guy who is chosen because of his body, he works out a lot and eats well, then women demand more of his time, then he neglects his routine and eats whatever he likes when he takes her out, and his body goes to shit... then she leaves him because he doesn't look as good as he did when they met.... So men, SAY NO TO WOMEN'S DEMANDS AND CONCENTRATE ON WHAT YOU KNOW YOU NEED TO DO, which is why she liked you in the first place.
Huh?
there is another way; i just say ducks (not that i suport that but still a probability)
Whenever I listen to Jordan, I want to chew a gum idk why:-/
Edit: whoever likes this comment may live long with good health.)
I'm too dumb to understand this
Six foot plus, eight inch plus, one hundred thousand plus... already knew this braheemzason.
Daniel Morgen want a medal?
Yes pweeze :3
This man is intelligent 💯
powerful
I don't entirely agree with this. The things males admire about other males is NOT what women necessarily look for in males.
Evolution vs food.
Food disproves evolution.
Every organism no matter how small either manufacturers or collects food or it would die very quickly.
Every organism identifies, ingests, digests, filters, stores, and excretes food.
It has to identify the difference between food or rock.
It must ingests food through a specialized opening designed to intake only food and nothing else.
The food itself is useless until it is digested, a complex multi-stage process all by itself.
If it cannot store the energy from the digested food at least temporarily it would die.
Then it must filter the waste products or die from internal toxicity.
And then excrete the waste products through an orifice specifically designed to excrete the waste and only the waste, the precious blood or cytoplasm must remain inside the body.
An Evolutionist wants you to believe that a life-form came together in the beginning with all of these features in place with no help and no time for natural selection... this would be the equivalent of a car capable of making another car inside of itself... because if it cannot reproduce it would be forever alone and die from old age.
God created life
❤
Evolution was dismissed as a scientific possibility over 100 years ago.
When we developed powerful microscopes and began to discover the majestic complexity inside of living cells, showing beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no such thing as simple life.
Therefore, life started complex from the beginning.
The humble prokaryotic green algae cell has more complexity than all the machines mankind has ever invented.
How do you get to hell?
Very simple: claim that you're innocent.
How do you get to heaven?
Very simple: Admit that you're not Innocent, you're guilty and ask for mercy.
How many lies have you told in your life?
Have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you?
Have you ever used God's holy name to curse, would you do that with your mother's name?
Jesus said:
Matthew 5:28
*_"but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."_*
Have you ever done that?
He be playing female troll tho
If you had 3 brothers 2 handsome and one ugly, which one is never going to date. The ugly one.
Yep human female
I think there is an overlap between the CEO and the sort of man I want to be, and the sort of man a woman is intrinsically attracted to (i.e. not b/c of money or status), but it is not a perfect overlap. E.g. Jesus, one of the most influential men in the world, never married, was executed at a young age, and all his followers ran away.
This is why small men always finish last.
basically, we're all primates🙉
LOl dat clickbait
Now, make a video about Why It is not a huge deal
thumbnail
Yo the female models in wow get to jump thru jumps in wsg
So Jordan Peterson is basically Green Jesus.
I didn't understand a single statement.
Clickbaitttt
He talks a lot to say little. All that hand waving is just a tool for his sophistry.
in what way is he employing sophistry? or do you just like using fancy words to sound smart? What benefit would be gained from him lying to all of us about any of this? for most of us, at least from what I can tell, it's an intrinsic and innate part of our nature, and we acknowledge this. His hand gestures are his way of conveying specific points that hold meaning or emphasis.
nice. clickbaited into wasting 5 minutes of my life on a rant about bullshit that everyone intrinsically knows and that doesn't actually inform about anything.
I put Darwin right up there with the Keynesian economy. Progress as a people doesn't mean we are evolving.
Keynesianism is full of sophistry simply because Keynes couldn't believe capitalism was so effective that bad people could take selfish actions for the good of all. He didn't want to BELIEVE that. (truth be damned.) Darwin made a rational induction that has been proven time and time again to be true.
NEVER conflate sophism with rational thought.
Can you explain this to me? I feel like you’re right, but couldn’t the argument be made that more and more information is being exposed to people more often and modern brains are being exposed to this and adapt to then take in and process that information faster ? Is that not evolution of the brain?
how is slavery and cocaine peddling good for all?
Not really evolution puts forth the idea we are changing our fundamental makeup. Learning new information isn't changing anything. You may know more but that isn't changing how your brain functions.
Explain which part? Evolution? There are evolutionary "patterns" in the brain. Machine learning neuroevolution basically uses this to mimic neurons in the brain. And it's all about evolving new genomes by trying a bunch of things and picking the ones that work. On the biological side, you can predicatively see many remnant organs, bones and structures from our evolutionary cycle. And you can even evolve species of animals and insects to something completely different.
These are good examples of making a theory, trying to prove it wrong, and then over time being proven right again and again.
Positivism doesn't work the same way for economics though. There are some observations which taken independently do seem to work. But that's like saying all of Christianity must be true given that we know if you treat other people well they "tend" to treat you well in return. A theory has to work for everything it's involved with. Stimulus, stagflation being impossible, the idea that all money is government money, or even the notion of a definite utility value of something is incredibly fallacious. It's as unhinged as Scientology. But we use it for policy.
This is making a bunch of theories, and over time many of them are untrue, but searching hard to try to prove them true.
This is what Popper argued against, show that you could prove nearly anything true if you want to look for reasons. But a sound theory will hold true even when doing your best to prove it wrong. And that's why it's closer to the truth. It will hold true for believers and non believers alike.
Yes, but what if you understand this and decide to take the red pill. You choose to focus on bettering yourself instead of conforming to a female selection heirarchy.
"No babies." - Jordan Peterson
"True, but i get to keep more than half my stuff." - Me
You keep your stuff but pass on no legacy. What do you reminisce about on your deathbed?
"Wow, wasn't it cool when I had more stuff than my peers?"
You do you.
when you watch too much Assmongold and youtube recommend this
hate clickbait but love peterson.
Thumb down or up?